REBOOT: Youth Rights

[Ipsum]

What rights should kids (i.e. people under the legal "adulthood" age) have? What agency should they have from parents, schools, etc.?

Youth: Anyone under the age of adulthood where you live.
Rights: Freedoms and entitlements gained just by being a citizen in a country, like freedom of speech.

[Azrael]

Let's try this again? This time let's stick to discussing youth rights in/around the existing understanding of human rights and society.

[Роберт]

This is a good question. Ideally, parents would be perfect and they could just take care of it. It should be a very gradual shift from "you're 6 months, you're not going to crawl over to the edge of that where you might fall, I'm PHYSICALLY PICKING YOU UP AND MOVING YOU TO STOP YOU" to treating the person as an adult.

When you can transition to what would vary from person to person, and the parents would perfectly figure out when the kids were ready for what responsibilities and execute that perfectly.

Unfortunately, that's not the case, so I think their needs to be some room for the government to step in and allow emancipation etc. No solid proposals from me right now.

[JBJ]

Okay, so I guess there are a couple of ways to go with this. As to the direct question of what rights should kids have, the short answer from me is as much as their parent(s)/guardian(s) want to give them.

My understanding of the reason why 18 (or 16,17,19,20, or whatever depending on country) was chosen is because most kids start exercising their independence around 11-14. Some sooner, some later. A late-teen age of majority gives them several years to practice and polish their life skills with the safety net of having a minor status and hopefully some parental guidance. Along the way, the parents give their kids additional rights and responsibilities according to their ability. Highly restricted and supervised at first, then gradually loosened. Ideally, when a teen reaches the age of majority they'll already have been enjoying adult rights and privileges for a few years, albeit on a kind of probationary period. Then, once the 18th birthday rolls around, the safety net gets taken away.

Now, one could question whether the current method of having a specific age, such as 18, be the cut-over from minor to adult status for everyone. Or whether a more individual system where minors could 'test out' of minor status for certain rights and privileges. We have that now with the emancipation process, but those are for the exceptions rather than the rule. The further away from the age of majority, the more difficult it is for a minor to show they can be emancipated. Not too difficult for a 17 year old, but really hard for a 14 year old. Given that difficulty, I don't see any benefit to remodeling the system to accommodate individual testing. In fact, the state and society generally recognizes that older youths are going to be exercising those rights. Teens are permitted to work more and longer hours the older they get. Curfew enforcement and travel restrictions are more lenient. Hell, the US Army will take you at 17 (with parental consent).

So, in my mind, this is more of a parenting question. As far as the state is concerned, once you are 18, you are an adult. (Unless of course, you commit a serious enough crime to be tried as an adult, but that's kind of like the emancipation process in reverse, where the state petitions that the minor is an adult, rather than the minor petitioning for adult status.) How well-prepared the individual is depends on how well they were raised. I don't think the state can do an adequate job of that preparation. It takes too much knowledge about someone to adjust the program to suit each person. Even though the public/private school system may help teach the concepts, they can't really evaluate the retention beyond the classroom. It comes back to the parents. I don't think parents have to be perfect, but they do have to gradually give their kids the independence they seek. Sheltering a child through their late teens can do as much harm as letting a 7 year old do whatever they want.

[LaserGuy]

Okay, so I guess there are a couple of ways to go with this. As to the direct question of what rights should kids have, the short answer from me is as much as their parent(s)/guardian(s) want to give them.

I prefer to think of it that children still have all of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them, but that some of these rights are held in trust by parents/guardians until the child is mature enough to be able to use them. Because the rights are in trust, the parents, as trustees of those rights, are expected to exercise them in a way that best benefits the child. If they fail to do so, then the care of those rights can be transferred to someone else. Essentially a power of attorney sort of thing.

The outcome, of course, is very much the same, except in certain edge cases.

[Роберт]

Okay, so I guess there are a couple of ways to go with this. As to the direct question of what rights should kids have, the short answer from me is as much as their parent(s)/guardian(s) want to give them.

I agree that that would make sense, assuming ideal parents.

How SHOULD a government deal with the real world? Sometimes kids are terrible, and sometimes parents are terrible, and sometimes there will be major disagreements. If a 15 year old girl runs away from home to live with her boyfriend, should the law be on her side or the parents? Or some third side?

[Ixtellor]

Ideally children would gain more rights as they gain cognative ability, demonstrate they understand the consequences of their actions, and the difference between right and wrong.

Since we don't have the infrastructure to measure all children, and more importantly any measurement would be biased and not really scientific, we rely on Age.

I think the system works well and for exceptions we have a lot of case law to deal with loopholes and outliars.

The law should be on the side of the parents until such time they prove they are neglectful or harmful to their children. I believe we have enough case law to have the parameters well defined.

We do not have enough funding for child protective services, so many children will still fall victim to unfit parents, but that is another topic.

I am not sure what % of the population would want to expand child rights, particularly the 2nd amendment, but I presume it is a tiny minority.

These entire topic seems settled in the developed world and greatly one sided.

[JBJ]

How SHOULD a government deal with the real world? Sometimes kids are terrible, and sometimes parents are terrible, and sometimes there will be major disagreements. If a 15 year old girl runs away from home to live with her boyfriend, should the law be on her side or the parents? Or some third side?

How should a government deal with unsupportive parents, you mean? I don't think they should. At least not as a standard practice; only in exceptional cases.

If a younger teenager really has reached an adult level of maturity, one of those mature virtues is patience. Other adult skills are compromise, bargaining, and resourcefulness. If a teen can't demonstrate to his/her parents that they can be trusted, then either the teen isn't as mature as they think they are or the parents are less mature than their child. In the former, what is there to argue about? In the latter, the teen can seek other outlets to nurture his/her skills or patiently count the days until they hit the magic 18. Or if things are really bad start emancipation proceedings. For qualifying definitions of really bad.

As for the 15 year old running away from home to live with her boyfriend, if...

• she is mature enough to be considered an adult AND parents are dysfunctional*, law sides with teen
• she is not mature enough to be considered adult AND parents are supportive, law sides with parents
• she is mature enough to be considered adult AND parents are supportive, why did she run away...?
• she is not mature enough to be considered adult AND parents are dysfunctional, this is a bad situation. Law may need to intervene depending on severity of family dysfunction.

* without defining the boundaries of that dysfunction, a family situation where her welfare is threatened

[maybeagnostic]

So what do you guys think about some significant right of passage for reaching maturity? Where I grew up mandatory military service served that purpose- 9 to 12 fairly unpleasant months with very limited contact with your family or any of your old friends. Had the disadvantage of being limited to males and, by all accounts, being wasted time. It was actually abolished before I had to go through it but moving to a different continent where I knew no one server a very similar purpose for me. I think everyone should go through something like it- a symbolic and, at least for a few months, practical separations from your family really helps someone get into their own.

[Qaanol]

I reiterate my stance from the previous incarnation of this thread (which unfortunately seems inaccessible, so I cannot view those posts for reference is now conveniently accessible via the spoiler below.)

Spoiler:

Going back to the original topic, I think people should obtain most rights several years earlier than the 18-years-old standard in the USA. Basic human rights should not be age-dependent. For example the right to free expression, the right to bodily autonomy, and the right to own property should be inherent from birth.

I will expound on the property rights for a moment. Suppose a grandparent gives a child some money, or a bicycle. The parents or legal guardians of the child should not be allowed to take the gift for their own. That would be theft. On the other hand, if the grandparent wants to make a college fund for the kid and have the parents steward it until the kid goes to college, the adults can make a contract saying as much. Anything that can be done under current law, having guardians control resources, could be accomplished by having the resources entrusted to the guardians contractually. This change would not take away any rights, and it would give children the right to own property.

The rights to sign contracts, vote in elections, give consent, and waive liability (such as swimming at one’s own risk), should be attained at an age around 14 years. Definitely before 16, probably not before 12. Whatever this age of majority ends up being, call it 14, should also be the legal age for holding a job.

At the age of 14, people are to be trusted with knives, bicycles, cars if they pass a road test, guns if they pass a safety test, and so forth. As such, we agree that the government should not be trying to protect people from themselves. To that end, the government should not place further age limits on personal behavior.

Special mention should be given to the concepts of drugs and gambling. The vast majority of teenagers are wise enough to keep themselves safe and not to lose all their money. Some experimentation with drugs is to be expected, and some gambling too. Even some addiction. But by and large, most people will end up just fine. The role of government is emphatically not to stop people from making stupid decisions, all the more so when it cannot actually do so effectively.

Regarding criminal culpability, I think a progressive system that just looks at how many crimes you’ve been convicted of, and how recently, will work for people of all ages. Heinous crimes like murder and rape might need special rules, and criminal culpability should be a function of mental development. But for run-of-the-mill crimes like petty theft, simple assault, and so forth, the following should work well.

Your first conviction? Great, you need to make restitution to the person you harmed, but you also get help. This can include psychiatric therapy to treat any underlying issues that led to your crime, training in a useful trade that will lead to gainful employment, and so forth. Anyone can take advantage of those options, but criminals may be required to do so, depending on the crime.

Your second conviction? How recent was your first? Over 10 years ago? This might as well be your first. More recent than that? Okay, you’ll have to do some community service, as well as get help and make restitution. Third conviction in only a few years? Oh boy, you’re causing problems. Now we need to start talking punishment.

Back to rights and responsibilities now. There might need to be some laws to protect teenagers from unscrupulous business practices they are too naïve or inexperienced to recognize…but there might need to be laws to protect fully-grown adults from being the victim of those practices as well. Indeed, the law should be age-indifferent as much as possible. If a person really wants to do something foolish, the government has no place stopping them.

Parental responsibility should be required to extend beyond age 14, perhaps to 18, but from age 14 a person can choose to become emancipated if they want.

Basic human rights such as the right to bodily autonomy, the right to own property, and the freedom of expression, should be inherent from birth. All other age-dependent rights, such as voting and working, should be granted at or before 14 years of age. Culpability for crimes should be a function of cognitive development, not age alone.

Persons in their early teenage years are entirely capable of keeping themselves safe when knives, guns, cars, drugs, sex, gambling, swimming pools, and other potentially dangerous things are around. We might need to revamp our education system to focus on critical thinking and life skills earlier, but that’s a problem with education, not with what 14 year olds can handle.

Before the age of 14 everyone should receive comprehensive training in personal budgeting, safe sex, how to make smart choices when drugs are present, and things of that nature. After turning 14, people should be able to take a gun safety course and carry a gun if they pass, take a driving safety course and operate a vehicle if they pass, and so forth.

[LaserGuy]

Persons in their early teenage years are entirely capable of keeping themselves safe when knives, guns, cars, drugs, sex, gambling, swimming pools, and other potentially dangerous things are around. We might need to revamp our education system to focus on critical thinking and life skills earlier, but that’s a problem with education, not with what 14 year olds can handle.

Where are you getting the impression that persons in their early teens are necessarily capable of safely handling all of these things? As was also pointed out in the other thread, there is still some five-to-ten years of major brain development that has yet to happen at this point. For a lot of those issues, the problem also is that not only are they potentially risking their own safety, but those of others as well. Age, for example, has a huge effect on driver safety. A person who is 25 and just learning to drive is much less likely to get into an accident than someone who is 16 and just learning to drive. Driver safety courses have little-to-no effect on reducing the number of crashes, and may in fact reduce overall road safety by allowing minors to be licensed at younger ages.

While I don't disagree about the need for better life-skills education in our school systems, I think you are vastly overestimating the ability of the average 14 year old to make adult decisions.

[Panonadin]

But those decisions aren't in my opinion adult ones. A 14 year old if properly educated should be able to make the right decision when involving life altering circumstance.

I'm not saying that a teenager, filled eith emotion and hormones can 100% of the time make the right decision involving everything, say punching someone who makes you angry, but in my opinion they should be able to make the decision to not stab that same person.

Is your stance that they may not understand the difference?

[LaserGuy]

But those decisions aren't in my opinion adult ones. A 14 year old if properly educated should be able to make the right decision when involving life altering circumstance.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

I'm not saying that a teenager, filled eith emotion and hormones can 100% of the time make the right decision involving everything, say punching someone who makes you angry, but in my opinion they should be able to make the decision to not stab that same person.

Is your stance that they may not understand the difference?

Well that's just the thing. Both of these scenarios are potentially life-altering decisions. If you punch someone who makes you angry, it is still entirely possible that you could seriously injure that person. It is still entirely possible that you could go to jail because of it. It is still possible that the person could turn around and inflict much greater violence on you. It is entirely possible that your assault and battery charge will give you a criminal record that you'll carry for the rest of your life. That's pretty serious business.

[Panonadin]

I hope I beat anyone currently typing on this topic because I don't like the quote quote quote thing.

No I don't have evidence of my opinion, thats specifically why I wrote that assertion as "in my opinion" so it wouldn't be taken as fact. I personally don't feel that those decisions listed should be considered "adult" and more along the lines of morally right/wrong.

However to your 2nd, I concede. I guess when I said "life altering" I really meant "life or death" which of course can be the same but also very different.

[krogoth]

I vote JBJ. I support your ideas as described here.

[Yondrose]

Basic human rights such as the right to bodily autonomy, the right to own property, and the freedom of expression, should be inherent from birth.

Than how would you discipline? I would argue that bodily autonomy should be age dependent, say at 10. I don't think it's a good idea to grant rights without setting limitations, and children by definition cant be expected to be responsible.

" All other age-dependent rights, such as voting and working, should be granted at or before 14 years of age." "Persons in their early teenage years are entirely capable of keeping themselves safe when knives, guns, cars, drugs, sex, gambling, swimming pools, and other potentially dangerous things are around. We might need to revamp our education system to focus on critical thinking and life skills earlier, but that’s a problem with education, not with what 14 year olds can handle."

Most adults (that I look up to) would say you couldn't pay them enough to be in their 20's again because they had no idea what was going on or who they where. Some kids can handle sex but I'm pretty sure most emotionally can't, nor can they be expected to understand the value of an education vs. work, or have the self control to not shoot some one in a fit of rage should they be PRESENTED WITH GUNS. The rights I think should be changed are; the drinking age should be replaced with Breathalyzers in all ignitions, as I have never heard a good argument for the restriction (hard liquor can be physically dangerous though); the sex law changed to include any 2+ people within 2 years of each other, or within 10% of their age (because again I don't trust children to look out for them selves); and there are others but I cant see them happening in this country+ they are not strictly about youth rights.

"Before the age of 14 everyone should receive comprehensive training in personal budgeting, safe sex, how to make smart choices when drugs are present, and things of that nature." By god, the only arguments I've heard against this are appeals to emotions with "oh no, sex!" I hope at the least abstinence only education phases out soon.

Edited for leaving half a line out.

[HungryHobo]

The idea of a test in order to be considered an adult has certain problems: namely it could be used to suppress voting rights for minorities or other groups, slant the test in such a manner that only people you like can pass and people you don't like remain children in the eyes of the law.

Right now emancipation only happens in unusual circumstances and is often viewed as a "fuck you" to the parents.

And of course many 18 year olds are still not actually mature while many 15 year olds are more rational and mature than the average adult.

But what if it was made more common, a default cutoff was maintined where everyone is eventually considered an adult and the default cutoff was pushed from 18 to say... 21 or something similar.

the criteria might be similar to emancipation but I'm not sure how you could make that staightforward enough to be usable on a larger scale and once an adult you'd get all the advantages/disadvantages of such.

so a 16 year old with a lot of common sense, a job of their own, paying their own taxes and decent general knowledge of how the world works could claim adulthood, voting rights, the right to sign contracts, the right to live as an independent adult, the right to join the army or get married etc if they want while a 20 year old helpless manchild would have to wait a little longer.

[curtis95112]

The idea of a test in order to be considered an adult has certain problems: namely it could be used to suppress voting rights for minorities or other groups, slant the test in such a manner that only people you like can pass and people you don't like remain children in the eyes of the law.

Right now emancipation only happens in unusual circumstances and is often viewed as a "fuck you" to the parents.

And of course many 18 year olds are still not actually mature while many 15 year olds are more rational and mature than the average adult.

But what if it was made more common, a default cutoff was maintined where everyone is eventually considered an adult and the default cutoff was pushed from 18 to say... 21 or something similar.

the criteria might be similar to emancipation but I'm not sure how you could make that staightforward enough to be usable on a larger scale and once an adult you'd get all the advantages/disadvantages of such.

so a 16 year old with a lot of common sense, a job of their own, paying their own taxes and decent general knowledge of how the world works could claim adulthood, voting rights, the right to sign contracts, the right to live as an independent adult, the right to join the army or get married etc if they want while a 20 year old helpless manchild would have to wait a little longer.

That's better, but still open to abuse. In a democracy, number is power. You're in effect creating a whole new age block, of which some select members have the power to vote. I'd be very wary of letting people in power decide who votes for them.

[HungryHobo]

that's true but I also have a problem with the fact that teenagers are expected to pay taxes without the right to vote.

if you're old enough to be required to hand your money over to the government then you're old enough to help decide how it should be spent.

and at least in the US the government already has well established ways to disenfranchise people, they can just define something more common in one group as a felony and the equivilent actions in other groups as either a more minor crime or not a crime at all. example: the harsher penalties for crack posession vs cocaine.

[Yondrose]

That is..appalling and haines. But I digress, how can setting voting age be abused? Everyone grows up eventually and I've never heard of a country setting a voting age near a minorities life expectence. And as for being taxed, tourists are taxed. The youth in question get police protection and a &$@! load of other benefits (plus education) as well as protections not extended to adults. The problem as I see it is that children don't have lawyer. They need them.

In middle school I would get in trouble if I defended myself from a bully because reporting the inseddent looked bad for the school. And they didn't report it, they asked my parents if they wanted to get me in trouble. I went to many schools and have found this to be the rule. There are no legal resources for children.

[curtis95112]

For instance, it could turn out that the average white person got their voting rights at 16.3, while the average black person got their voting rights at 17.4. I see this as quite likely to happen.

[Yondrose]

That's quite a reach there, especially since the issue you raise is unrelated to age discrimination. Separate is not equal and we all have the right to equal protection under the law.

[marcel]

so a 16 year old with a lot of common sense, a job of their own, paying their own taxes and decent general knowledge of how the world works could claim adulthood, voting rights, the right to sign contracts, the right to live as an independent adult, the right to join the army or get married etc if they want while a 20 year old helpless manchild would have to wait a little longer.

So you would say that a high-school dropout with a job shows more signs of adulthood then a person who spends his time trying to get more education?

I would say that in your example a 16 year old with a lot of common sense, who is living with his parents, going to school, a decent general knowledge of how the world works, should be able to claim the exact same rights as the 16 year old in your example, since this person is also showing signs of adulthood.

The only relevant criterium is a decent general knowledge of how the world works, and then the problem remains that there is off course no good way of testing whether a person has a decent general knowledge of how the world works, since such tests are usually biased.

[HungryHobo]

So you would say that a high-school dropout with a job shows more signs of adulthood then a person who spends his time trying to get more education?

Depends if you consider self sufficiency to be a sign of maturity.

I've known 20 year olds in college who were still basically children through and through who couldn't survive without handouts from mom and dad and at least one 16 year old who was living independently, managing their own life, with a job and still in school.

In my view working a job and earning a living is more a sign of adulthood than *just* being in full time education. 5 year olds do the latter, almost all who do the former are adults.

[omgryebread]

Put a test for voting rights for kids in, and I'll start a free course that takes an hour and teaches kids how to pass the test. I'll go to black neighborhoods and other historically liberal areas and offer the course, along with some refreshments and a voter registration drive.

A test wouldn't select for maturity or decision making ability, it would select for ability to pass a test. And you can bet I and people like me would abuse that.

[HungryHobo]

Put a test for voting rights for kids in, and I'll start a free course that takes an hour and teaches kids how to pass the test. I'll go to black neighborhoods and other historically liberal areas and offer the course, along with some refreshments and a voter registration drive.

A test wouldn't select for maturity or decision making ability, it would select for ability to pass a test. And you can bet I and people like me would abuse that.

What's the current process for teens seeking emancipation?

I doubt it's just a paper test like a maths paper.

Could you teach a random teen in an hour how to get themselves emancipated such that they could march into a courthouse and make it happen the same day?

there's a difference between an assesment and a test. a test can be part of an assesment but there can be more to it than that.

[omgryebread]

Put a test for voting rights for kids in, and I'll start a free course that takes an hour and teaches kids how to pass the test. I'll go to black neighborhoods and other historically liberal areas and offer the course, along with some refreshments and a voter registration drive.

A test wouldn't select for maturity or decision making ability, it would select for ability to pass a test. And you can bet I and people like me would abuse that.

What's the current process for teens seeking emancipation?

I doubt it's just a paper test like a maths paper.

Could you teach a random teen in an hour how to get themselves emancipated such that they could march into a courthouse and make it happen the same day?

Emancipation is a rare event, requires a ruling from a family court, proving financial independence, and such.

I don't see how that's a response to my argument. Either you're saying only emancipated minors should be able to vote, which is silly. I've been politically active of my own will since I was 9 (I convinced my parents to volunteer with me in a mayoral race) but I've never desired to get emancipated.

Or you're saying that the process should be equally rigorous, which is unworkable. For all the kids who want to vote, or parents who want them to vote, or community organizers who want them to vote, you'd need courts ready to judge the cases.

Chances are, a test for voting would be much more like a test for your learner's permit. As in, yes, a paper test to sit down and take. And I could teach a random teen to pass that in an hour.

[Gear]

Put a test for voting rights for kids in, and I'll start a free course that takes an hour and teaches kids how to pass the test. I'll go to black neighborhoods and other historically liberal areas and offer the course, along with some refreshments and a voter registration drive.

A test wouldn't select for maturity or decision making ability, it would select for ability to pass a test. And you can bet I and people like me would abuse that.

Yeah, and the only way to avoid that would be to drastically change (as, not just the questions, but the format, the time frame, everything) the test every couple of months, and that is a) expensive, b) difficult, and c) almost impossible to make the tests on the same level. So if you take the test in January, and then they change it and July, a person might have passed one but failed the other.

So while a test is a good idea in abstract, the actual application would be pretty flawed.

What's the current process for teens seeking emancipation?

I doubt it's a paper test.

Could you teach a random teen in an hour how to get themselves emancipated?

To get emancipated in (most states in) America you have to:

- be older than 14
- live in a house/apartment separate from your parents
- make enough money to live
- fill out a crapload of forms
- get your parents to consent or show the court that they have 'acquiesced' to your arrangement
- pay a fee (~$200 I think?)
- show that it is in your best interest (poor living conditions, recent orphan close to being legal, etc.) to get emancipated

[HungryHobo]

Chances are, a test for voting would be much more like a test for your learner's permit.

Or perhaps more like that for a drivers liscence.
Could you teach a teen to pass a full driving test in an hour?
If so you could make a fortune as an instructor.

We already assess people in that manner on a large enough scale to decide if they're capable of controlling a ton of steel at high speed where they could kill others. something similar of a similar scale and style to decide if they're capable enough to care for themselves wouldn't be that crazy.

Emancipation is a rare event in large part because it's viewed as a "fuck you" to your parents rather than a mark of pride, a statement that your child wants to get the hell away rather than proof that you've raised an unusually mature and capable young person.

that doesn't have to be the case.

- be older than 14
- live in a house/apartment separate from your parents
- make enough money to live
- fill out a crapload of forms
- get your parents to consent or show the court that they have 'acquiesced' to your arrangement

these seem like they're not unreasonable critera to take into account as part of any assesment.

[curtis95112]

That misses the point.
You can benefit from every standardized test I know of by being taught to the test. Your ability to have yourself taught to the test depends more on socioeconomic factors (mostly outside the child's control) than your maturity/intelligence.

[HungryHobo]

That misses the point.
You can benefit from every standardized test I know of by being taught to the test. Your ability to have yourself taught to the test depends more on socioeconomic factors (mostly outside the child's control) than your maturity/intelligence.

Sure you can teach to the test but a good test will force you to become capable in doing so.
Perhaps driving tests are easier in the US but it's hard to pass one here without being reasonably competent on the road.

[omgryebread]

That misses the point.
You can benefit from every standardized test I know of by being taught to the test. Your ability to have yourself taught to the test depends more on socioeconomic factors (mostly outside the child's control) than your maturity/intelligence.

Sure you can teach to the test but a good test will force you to become capable in doing so.
Perhaps driving tests are easier in the US but it's hard to pass one here without being reasonably competent on the road.

Because they have an individual sitting with you in a one-on-one examination. That requires several full time employees per geographic area. That's expensive.

It also doesn't solve the fact that it's easily manipulable. Rich people are going to have an easier time passing a driving test. This isn't a huge social justice issue, it's kind of to be expected. When rich people have a much easier time voting, woo there's a problem.

A one-on-one test like the driving test is also extremely problematic for another reason: it's subjective. Did I drive safely or not? Did I look carefully enough at a stop sign? Unless they're straight up corrupt and taking money for passing scores, a tester for a driving license doesn't have much reason to abuse the subjectivity. A tester for voting rights...

It doesn't even have to be conscious manipulation. I can personally tell you that I tend to estimate a liberal person's understanding of things more highly than I would a conservative. A tester could pick up on what way a kid leans and let that bias his results, without even being corrupt about it.

[LaserGuy]

A one-on-one test like the driving test is also extremely problematic for another reason: it's subjective. Did I drive safely or not? Did I look carefully enough at a stop sign? Unless they're straight up corrupt and taking money for passing scores, a tester for a driving license doesn't have much reason to abuse the subjectivity. A tester for voting rights...

Purely anecdotal, but my understanding is that being a pretty blonde wearing a low-cut shirt seems to make it much more likely that you'll pass a driving test.

[maydayp]

My opinion breaks down into several sections.
first health care. ever school should have a medical professional there who has contacts with other professionals (doctors, therapists, etc), and can set up appointments for these children. OR Medical Independence starting at 12. It should also be completely covered by the government when accessed through schools. I rational behind that is, if the kid isn't comfortable enough to tell their parents something is wrong, then either the kid is being mistreated, or not believed. I've had both happen, and it's effected my life (lack of new glasses, asthma meds, and untreated depression really hurt a person). And yes I approached my mother on all issues (and it would have been covered via the gov) but she refused to take me to the doctors, and we were way out of town, in a small town.
Driving. I live In BC Canada, so I've a completely different experience them most people. We have a crappy graduated license program. It has three stages, to pass any of those before you are 19 (OR to get your BC Identification) you need your parents' signature, to show they consent to it (they have to be there, there's no form to fill out at home, even for the ID). I do not mind this so much for the second stage (the N) but for the first stage (the L) it's ridiculous, since you have to have some one who's over 25 in the vehicle to drive legally. In addition most people are away from home, going to school or working, by the time they are 19. You also cannot get your 'L' until you are 16 (where as our neighbors in Alberta can get their license at 14), and you need it for a year (not unreasonable).
with a graduated license program the starting age should be 14/15, with the second stage available at 16 then the full license at 18, or for those who take it after that, 1 year for the first step, two for the second step. and no consent needed if you cannot drive without a passenger with their full license (assuming a length or age barrier in place). Without a graduated license program, I think you should be required to have parental signature, or proof of proficiency (very in depth road test, driving lessons,) or Independence.
for voting, 17 because that's the youngest people usually graduate from high-school, and it would give schools a chance and reason (not easily defeated by "what's the dif, I can't vote) to get students politically active.
I also think that, in regards to legal age to purchase these items, smoking laws should be 16, but drinking should be 18 (smoking doesn't damage driving skills, drinking does, and most young people are too irresponsible to be able to buy alcohol IMOP).
Freedom of religion. adults have this, in major doses, I mean technically we are no longer even supposed to say marry christmas, but rather happy holidays. (no problem with it, just pointing it out). So schools should not be able to require attendance at religious services (lets be nice and say age 12-14), or religious classes (unless said classes can be proved unbiased and teach about at least the 5 religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.).